Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

The new abortion law allow for infanticide shortly after birth. But for the sake of the mother’s mental and physical health, why not give her three days to decide if she wants the baby to live or have it destroyed?

Is there really any difference between fetus five minutes before birth and a baby an hour after birth? If not, Why not provide the mother an additional three days to choose life or death for the sake of her mental health? Babies can be aggravating and the mother may not want to deal with it.

In New York state, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law that makes abortion legal, even after the unborn child is viable, so long as the abortionist makes a “reasonable and good-faith judgment” that abortion will protect the pregnant woman’s health. In Rhode Island, Governor Gina Raimondo has pledged to sign legislation that also makes abortion legal after viability to “preserve . . . health.” In Virginia, state legislator Kathy Tran has introduced legislation that would, she has explained, make abortion legal even at term and in the middle of birth................................

It is really quite simple. Rather than letting the baby starve on a table, keep it alive for three days in consideration of the mental health of the mother. One hour or three days; what is the difference now that it is agreed that only the mother’s mental health is important which justifies abortion and infanticide.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

In the past I've jokingly suggested that I favor post-birth abortion up till age 22 or so. Tired of your teenager? Off 'em. They're not fully human anyway.

I never imagined that the underlying logic of my silly joke would become the rationale for legalizing post-birth abortion. A two-minute old baby isn't fully human yet, and the feelings of the mother are all that matters. Read the text of the laws.

For the past several decades I've been a "safe, legal, and rare" guy. I still am. I'll say for the record the Dems' recent cheering as states pass these awful and immoral bills is a bridge too far for me. And there's going to be a backlash from centrists with a functioning conscience.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

It is a difficult topic since it forces us to contemplate what we mean by respect for life and ethics that reflect it. What if anything gives a fetus the day before birth value? Is it only the mother? What gives a baby three days old value. Is it just laws or is value determined by something other than societal laws. If it is the latter how do we respect it. What is respect for life and why bother with it?

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Nick_A » March 10th, 2019, 8:29 pm wrote:It is really quite simple. Rather than letting the baby starve on a table, keep it alive for three days in consideration of the mental health of the mother. One hour or three days; what is the difference now that it is agreed that only the mother’s mental health is important which justifies abortion and infanticide.

So, are you advocating this? If so, do you have a legal, moral, economic or social argument for it?If not, do you have an argument against it?

someguy1 -- For the past several decades I've been a "safe, legal, and rare" guy. I still am. I'll say for the record the Dems' recent cheering as states pass these awful and immoral bills is a bridge too far for me.

If you consider something awful and immoral, you must have a reason - other than that there might be political backlash. What is your reasoning?

Bdger Jelly -- Why not? Seems like a bery strange comment to post. How about not bothering to reply rather than saying you have nothing to say? Ridiculous.

Why not: because it usually results in a lot of people ranting and blowing a lot of purple smoke, based on nothing but gut feelings or faith, with no reasoned discussion of substantial issues. Why not: it's tiresome.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Let us be clear about is being said. This has been the mothers choice fro as long as I can remember. That is if it is a choice between saving the baby or the mother either the mother or next of kin decides.

The issue is in what constitutes a reasonable risk to the would be mother’s, and baby’s, health. When it comes to giving birth and the baby is in the world it is then up to the doctors and family to decide about the treatment of the baby. I would imagine all means possible woudl be used to keep the baby alive, and just as with most cases where life support is required to sustain life at some point a decision has to be made.

I don’t think there is anything more sinister in the legislation, yet it is certainly a topic that needs to be looked at closely and, more importantly, CALMLY and REASONABLY rather than pandering to hypbolic statements made which skew the intent of these laws in order to push some bizarre ethical agenda that is held by some, not all, people - often of religious inclinations and with little to no understanding of the medical procedures involved or of the dangers of birth to both mother and baby.

I am guessing that is just about the summation of what Serpent would’ve said if he actually bothered to think before reacting to a post that is full of assumptions and, to be generous, deeply speculative ideas and interpretations; no doubt pushed by some conspircy theorists and some who are genuinely concerned and to assume the worst.

A sensible discussion can be had here. It might not happen but it’s surely possible?

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Nick_A » March 10th, 2019, 8:29 pm wrote:It is really quite simple. Rather than letting the baby starve on a table, keep it alive for three days in consideration of the mental health of the mother. One hour or three days; what is the difference now that it is agreed that only the mother’s mental health is important which justifies abortion and infanticide.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I a simply raising the question. i personally don't agree with this practice of allowing babies to die naturally. The serious question is why not. Wht gives the fetus or the baby value if indeed it does hve objective value?

........................BJ

The issue is in what constitutes a reasonable risk to the would be mother’s, and baby’s, health. When it comes to giving birth and the baby is in the world it is then up to the doctors and family to decide about the treatment of the baby. I would imagine all means possible woudl be used to keep the baby alive, and just as with most cases where life support is required to sustain life at some point a decision has to be made.

.................

Don't forget that abortion was the initial goal. The mother did not want a baby. What then is there for the doctor and the mother to discuss? The idea of three days offers the opportunity to change her mind.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Don't forget that abortion was the initial goal. The mother did not want a baby. What then is there for the doctor and the mother to discuss? The idea of three days offers the opportunity to change her mind.

Lost my post and don’t want to write all of that again!

In short, there is a difference between 5 mins before birth and after. One poses greater danger to both mother and baby.

If the mother doesn’t want the baby (which is a given if she said she wants a abortion) it would make sense to leave the choice of life-support up to the doctors.

If the mother suddenly changes her mind in order to shut off life support I imagine the doctors would have good enough judgement to see if this is being done fro the baby or not don’t you think?

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

To add this does lead to a broader question of parenthood and who is a “suitable” parent. My mother has said many a time that it is crazy that someone can be banned from owning a pet yet anyone can have a baby.

Whatever society collectively decides on there will always be holes in the laws in place. The very fact that we’re able to constantly reassess and discuss these questions, sometimes reasonably and sometimes less so, is a positive sign for humanity and outlines what “being humane” is all about - making a mess and doing our damn best to remedy the symptoms of the mistakes and guard against them whilst siultaneously trying to understand the “mistake” in and of itself.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Is it safe to say that there is no basis for an objective respect for life? There is no difference in objective value between a fetus five minutes before birth and a baby five minutes after birth. Differences are only imagined by society and enforced by laws. In reality there is no valid intellectual reason to respect life other than how it can serve us.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Yes. There are all kinds of standards from the head of state itching to start a nuclear war to a vegan pacifist who wears hemp, protests capital punishment and avoids stepping on ants.

You appear to be concerned exclusively about the lives of infants.

There is no difference in objective value between a fetus five minutes before birth and a baby five minutes after birth.

No, there isn't. Objectively, they have about the same caloric value, the same market value, the same potential to be model citizens, trigger-happy cops, drug addicts or trapeze artists. Unless they're defective, and in that case, their value would depend on the chances of recovery, the cost of repair, the quality their own lives could attain and the effect they would have on other people. The value of a human being of any age is purely subjective and relative.

Differences are only imagined by society and enforced by laws. In reality there is no valid intellectual reason to respect life other than how it can serve us.

Yet, for some reason - and that's what I'm trying to bring forth - you mention letting newborns starve on a table. Can you cite the examples where this has happened, so we can better judge the circumstances and rationale? You also say the mother (which mother?) never wanted a baby, but you do not say why she went through the entire unpleasant business of a pregnancy and decided to abort at full term rather than give it to a childless couple. That sounds very strange to me; I would like to know a lot more detail before making a judgment. In my experience, this is not a common occurrence. I very much doubt a liberal abortion laws will lead to an epidemic of infanticide or a catastrophic decline in population. Personally, I see no cause for concern.That's why I'm asking for the cause of your concern.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder." Simone Weil

The point I am making is that by definition life has no objective value in secular society. Value is strictly a subjective decision without an objective basis. You seem to agree.

Genocides are justified in this way. Certain people are believed to need killing and if the stronger side declares the weaker lacking any value and just gets in the way, why shouldn’t they be killed? I’m using abortion and infanticide as a means for opening question of respect for life. I see that Simone is right. Without objective value, what is more natural than murder? When we make laws to legalize it, it means some are attracted to murder what is believed to be lacking value.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

The point I am making is that by definition life has no objective value in secular society. Value is strictly a subjective decision without an objective basis.

The objective value of life in “secular society” culmination of individuals valuation of their own lives and others. An individuals life has value relative to the existence of others lives. ALL objectivity is effectively founded upon the culmination of subjective interactions via empathy and exploration of self and other.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

I'm going to toss in a yellow flag and ask people not to construct Strawman renditions of viewpoints other than their own. I invite members to look up the actual language and definitions contained in US abortion laws, rather than resort to inflammatory phrasing. This is not a political form, and we don't do soapboxing here. This is a philosophy forum, where terms are carefully defined - and scrutinized.

And a factual note - most polls show that only a tiny percent of Americans, of either major party, are in favor of late-term abortions of any kind. No party is championing "killing babies," except in the fevered rhetoric of partisans.

The New York law, which is the most extreme, only permits late-term abortion when the mother's life is at risk and/or when the fetus is not viable. And this call can only be made by a healthcare professional, as one might expect where such a determination needs to be made. And, if the baby can be safely delivered, that is done.

I expect a reasoned response to this post, a "good faith" reading of actual abortions laws, such as here:

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Nick_A » March 11th, 2019, 11:03 am wrote:The point I am making is that by definition life has no objective value in secular society. Value is strictly a subjective decision without an objective basis. You seem to agree.

Except for one word. I meant, in all societies.

I’m using abortion and infanticide as a means for opening question of respect for life.

And you're equating abortion to genocide because secular societies allow abortion, while religious societies commit genocide? Fair enough. Want to compare numbers of casualties - just for an objective assessment.

Without objective value, what is more natural than murder? When we make laws to legalize it, it means some are attracted to murder what is believed to be lacking value.

That's human history. Are you proposing to change that collective bahaviour, starting with abortion laws and working up to war? It would seem to me more logical to approach it from the opposite direction.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Nick_A » March 10th, 2019, 6:29 pm wrote:Democrats are increasingly explicit in their support for killing unborn children at any stage of pregnancy — and sometimes even of denying normal medical care to born children.

This kind of partisan posting is expressly forbidden at SPCF. I hope that doesn't seem unwelcoming, but I will have to ask you not to do this again. These statements are untrue - but whatever their truth value may have been, such statements require citing evidentiary support. It's not surprising that you provide none. Anyone who has followed situations on the southern border of the U.S. would be more likely to counter your remarks with observations about how a Republican administration has treated the children of people seeking asylum in the U.S. Or how GOP social policies have impacted the health of children living in poverty. My point is that such a comment as yours opens up a can of worms, and a partisan battle, which is what we don't do here. Sorry to repeat myself, but I want this point to be very clear to you.

I never imagined that the underlying logic of my silly joke would become the rationale for legalizing post-birth abortion. A two-minute old baby isn't fully human yet, and the feelings of the mother are all that matters. Read the text of the laws.

For the past several decades I've been a "safe, legal, and rare" guy. I still am. I'll say for the record the Dems' recent cheering as states pass these awful and immoral bills is a bridge too far for me. And there's going to be a backlash from centrists with a functioning conscience.

I'll stipulate that many strongly disagree with me. Save your venom.

Et tu, Someguy? I will ask you to read my responses, and cautions, to the OP, and observe the same rules of forum decorum and discourse. If you don't want venom, please join with others in leaving partisan attacks ("Dems' cheering....") out of this discussion. I have yet to meet a Democrat who is cheering on late-term abortions, or is at all comfortable with the thorny ethical issues that arise after 24 weeks. I'm sure there are extremists on this issue, but the polling I'm seeing puts their numbers at, or below, 13% of the the electorate. And I suspect much of that minority is only comfortable with this because of the extreme rarity of such procedures. (this doesn't signal my approval, btw, just an observation)

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Reporting verified news. It's not a "partisan attack" to report what has actually occurred.

That reads a lot more like editorial than news. It's none too specific about what "awful and immoral" bill was being cheered, why it "dehumanizes us all", or what she actually thinks the law should be.

I still haven't heard anything about the condition of the specific infant in question. The anti faction - and that editorial - makes it sound as if two fifths of newborns can now be legally killed. But, hark, did she say, while the parents decide whether to "resuscitate"? That suggests there was something not right about the birth, doesn't it? And that bill wasn't passed, so what's it doing in the article? Still haven't heard anything about the specific situations in which this law is invoked.

Might it be that this "awful and immoral" bill concerns a medical decision to refrain from torturing babies with heroic intervention that cannot assure them a reasonable quality of life? Is the problem that a woman carrying a severely damaged foetus, and the huge emotional load that's already put on her, is no longer forced to face a tribunal and wait for permission to let the poor little mite out of its misery?

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

That's not a news post. That's an opinion column from Parker, a conservative. You characterized a party as cheering for "awful and immoral bills." The bills at issue may be, but that's not what you are arguing. Your thrust is that Democrats, overall, are cheering for it. To make such an assertion takes us out of the philosophy forum and into partisan argument which would depend on scientific polls that show, with reasonable MOE, registered Democrats favoring the aspects you see as immoral.

Please followed PCF guidelines. I said I wouldn't ask twice, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt, in case you weren't clear on what evidence means. News, as evidence, means factual reporting from reputable sources.

Ethics thread. The topic is the ethical considerations involved in late term abortion. The topic is not playing "gotcha! now I can demonize an entire social group!"

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Nick_A » March 10th, 2019, 6:29 pm wrote:Democrats are increasingly explicit in their support for killing unborn children at any stage of pregnancy — and sometimes even of denying normal medical care to born children.

This kind of partisan posting is expressly forbidden at SPCF. I hope that doesn't seem unwelcoming, but I will have to ask you not to do this again. These statements are untrue - but whatever their truth value may have been, such statements require citing evidentiary support. It's not surprising that you provide none. Anyone who has followed situations on the southern border of the U.S. would be more likely to counter your remarks with observations about how a Republican administration has treated the children of people seeking asylum in the U.S. Or how GOP social policies have impacted the health of children living in poverty. My point is that such a comment as yours opens up a can of worms, and a partisan battle, which is what we don't do here. Sorry to repeat myself, but I want this point to be very clear to you.

Vat, I never posted that. It may have been part of a link. I take the Simone Weil view of politics. Anyone with a mob mentality will find no support from Simone. She wrote

"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil

I admire people capable of impartial reason in spite of the attacks they will receive from the indoctrinated and see no reason to be part of an indoctrinated mob dedicated to a political agenda. From your link:

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”.............................

As you know everything is subject to interpretations and the right amount of dollars placed in the appropriate hands. Give a doctor the right amount of cash and he will say that abortion in this person's case is justified This thread is leading to another one even more controversial which is the subject of "conscience" as described by those like Plato, Plotinus, and Einstein. It is the essence of philosophy since it concerns Man's search to experience meaning. Later on we can examine how "conscience" effects abortion and why it seems to have become atrophied in human being.

Do not concern yourself with political agendas on my part. My concern is for the human condition and why as a whole we are as we are which seems for me to be the purpose of philosophy

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

This may be so, but the demographic capable of exercising this option are not bound by the conventional rules, anyway. They're not covered by existing abortion law, which is intended, and enforced, only on the people who can't afford a certain level of private medical care; i.e. mostly the poor.

Give a doctor the right amount of cash and he will say that abortion in this person's case is justified

I can think of several doctors who would take personal offense at that, and entire professional associations that might take class action.

This thread is leading to another one even more controversial which is the subject of "conscience"

I don't see it leading there. Or anywhere.

Later on we can examine how "conscience" effects abortion and why it seems to have become atrophied in human being.

Why wait? You haven't, so far, presented substantial arguments for any ethical issues.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Serpent, you must know that there are many unethical doctors who prescribe drugs for cash. They infest the entertainment industry for example. All this thread has done is verified that we lack an objective respect for life. The value of life is determined by society and how it has indoctrinated us. Once this is agreed upon we can examine the alternative view that conscience is a priori soul knowledge of which respect for life is a part. Einstein referred to it as intuition. Lets get all the subjective societal justifications first and then see if perhaps there is value in opening to soul knowledge and allow ourselves the experience of objective conscience even if it opposes political correctness.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Nick_A » March 11th, 2019, 3:38 pm wrote:Serpent, you must know that there are many unethical doctors who prescribe drugs for cash. They infest the entertainment industry for example.

Why must I know that? One hears rumours, of course, but gossip isn't knowledge. I'll concede that, in the entertainment industry, there is lots of money for corruption of all kinds. How does that affect legislation on reproductive rights?

All this thread has done is verified that we lack an objective respect for life.

Okay.

The value of life is determined by society and how it has indoctrinated us.

Obviously. This didn't require so much redundant rhetoric about this one minor aspect of one portion of humanity's attitude to life.

Once this is agreed upon we can examine the alternative view that conscience is a priori soul knowledge of which respect for life is a part.

Soul knowledge. Huh? Conscience, I understand.

Einstein referred to it as intuition.

If he did, his English was inadequate. Conscience and intuition are not interchangeable.Anyway, so what? Are you going to list every famous person's take on what you refer to as a soul, or just the ones you can interpret according to the agenda? For the sake of less argument, how be it you leave out everyone who can't defend him- or herself on this thread?

Lets get all the subjective societal justifications first

Justifications used by all societies for all their attitudes to all forms of life? That could take a while, but I'm up for it.

and then see if perhaps there is value in opening to soul knowledge and allow ourselves the experience of objective conscience even if it opposes political correctness.

You know, all the good stuff you do at the Philosophy Now forum, which happily accommodates, without banning or even moderation, posters who call black people “coloreds,” and posters who post vulgar diatribes against gays and transsexuals. Honestly, man, isn’t that your natural habitat?

But hey, if you stick around here, maybe you could meet Dennis Markuze! :-D

You don't know me. I don't like being around such nastiness but I look for the minority open to the depth of philosophical and religious ideas which pertain to the human condition. Sadly it cannot be done over there. I’m not holding back. If people here are open to discussing the deeper meanings of the Cave allegory I would appreciate it. I know if we can discuss abortion in the context of both societal mores and objective conscience, we can discuss anything. It isn’t possible on Philosophy Now. I learned about this site from someone who is a member and apparently a bit disappointed with that forum. I thank him without mentioning his name for his sake.

Of course secular intolerance is a necessary idea but if people do not exhibit it here, why bring it up. It deals directly with Simone Weil’s description of the poison of emotional skepticism and its damaging effect on philosophy. Drawing the distinction between intellectual and emotional skepticism is an important topic but if people here do not suffer from emotional skepticism, why bring it up?

Simone Weil — 'The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil.'

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Is it possible that our collective conscience could sufficiently develop so we feel the value of the cycle of life from conception to death? If we appreciated the value of the process it does seem there would be far less abortions and virtually no abortions of convenience. But it does seem that conscience has atrophied. Without it and the universal respect for life, I don't see the human condition improrving. BS can go just so far.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

It is really quite simple. Rather than letting the baby starve on a table, keep it alive for three days in consideration of the mental health of the mother. One hour or three days; what is the difference now that it is agreed that only the mother’s mental health is important which justifies abortion and infanticide.

Lets get all the subjective societal justifications first and then see if perhaps there is value in opening to soul knowledge and allow ourselves the experience of objective conscience even if it opposes political correctness.

If you think a law on the books which is a permissive law (not a law of restriction) must pass a bar of "justification", I have some really bad news for you.

Abortion is an ethical question of colliding rights. In the ethical framework of Social Contract Theory, its greatest weakness is in those situations in which two rights conflict. This means, you could scream "rights of the unborn" until your face turns blue, and it makes no progress on the ethical question. SCT cannot resolves those questions until at which it references something outside its framework. You are invoking Rights as a basis of your ethical and moral argument, but then trying to use the ethical system of Rights to uphold your position of the illegality of abortion. But in a world of conflicting Rights, there is no resolution from Rights-based ethical frameworks.

The point I am making is that by definition life has no objective value in secular society. Value is strictly a subjective decision without an objective basis. You seem to agree.

In a Republic, the right to life is legally and politically protected by the entire society. A Republic can be totally secular and many of them have been, even going back to ancient Rome. Your repeated references to "value" and "objective value" sounds like some brand of Utilitarianism.

Genocides are justified in this way. Certain people are believed to need killing and if the stronger side declares the weaker lacking any value and just gets in the way, why shouldn’t they be killed?

First of all genocide has no justification. That's why it is recognized as a crime against humanity by the entire Western World.

the stronger side declares the weaker lacking any value and just gets in the way, why shouldn’t they be killed?

What you are describing here is an extreme , radical form of Utilitarianism. In a more academic context, you would be called out for engaging in a slippery slope argument. I would say you slipped violently into one, by taking its logic to its "ultimate extreme". This type of polar thinking at the extremes is already known in ethics. So for example if you take any ethical framework to its complete pathological climax, you get really disturbing results.

For example -- If a society were not a republic, and there were no "Human Rights" to speak of, utilitarianism would engage in scientific experimentation on live humans. The ethical calculation goes : about 200 young adolescents must be irradiated on purpose, so that we can watch how cancer forms in their lungs. We need to do this to 200 people to get "good statistics". While those 200 people suffer and die, the medical knowledge we gain will help cure millions in the future. Oh an while we are at it, we are going to strap live humans into cars and then smash them into walls and drive them off cliffs. While it may kill and maim a few, the knowledge we gain about accidents will save many in the future. Hey! The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, right?

Right?

No. You recoil in terror. Everyone does. Human scientific experimentation is banned in the entire civilized world. You can't strap people into cars and smash them into walls. You can't give people cancer on purpose by irradiating them. You can't dump toxic chemicals on a city to "see how people react." The reason you can't do this legally is because human beings have Rights. Those Rights are protected from the government taking them way, willy-nilly for the "greater good". Long story short, you can take an ethical stance and take it to an extreme and get repugnant results.

The decision made in Roe vs. Wade was that you had multiple states with differing abortion laws. And the wealthy would jump on a midnight plane ride to got get a secret "operation" in upperstate Wyoming. Because the Federal Government deals in interstate stuff, they had to weigh in on the case which was appealed up the ladder to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS considered Rights against Rights and handed down a split decision. That is what happened. Historically this is what happened and that's where we are.

Bottom line. Americans did not sit around contemplating the "value of life" and decide "life has no objective value" and so "lets kill the infants." That is insanity. What you are posting on this forum is not rational.

Last edited by hyksos on March 11th, 2019, 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Ignore davidm he’s mostly full of venom so he has to spit it out somewhere. He does say some sensible things though between his vomitted rhetoric. There is the option to “foe” in your profile so you don’t have to listen to his insults - they wouldn’t be so bad if there was something of substance in his post.

That said “soul” is not the best term to use here (especially if you’re not going to outline exectly what that means to you). We’re born with the innate capacity to learn and we do a lot of this by empathizing with others around us. We’re born with a sense of a body map (by this I mean we can watch another being and mimic them - right from birth). If we can physically mimic someone then we can come to understand how they may feel - our emotional feelings being physical feelings (faster beating heart for some emotions or a more relaxed physical body for others).

Of course, on top of that we have to factor in the societal norms, the differences in experience and individual neurochemistry (which is also dependent upon diet and general physical living). As we’re VERY social creatures we’re very much about empathy. Even if no other humans are around we’d no doubt create a sense of “other” (be it a dog, tree or even a stone) so we’d always have a regard for what is “right” and “wrong” based on the external world’s items - be they sentient or otherwise.

In this sense I don’t see how “conscience has atrophied” in humans? When we’re in disagreement I would say that it is a sure sign that human empathy is as fresh and alive as ever - we’re still coming to terms with many societal problems though and we’ll always have to adjust our thinking to acccomodate different perspectives alongside new discoveries. Then whole PC cultue thing is something people have been bemoaning since the early 90’s. It’s become an easy target and so more and more people took it up. Even when the actual reality of this PC attitude disappear you’ll no doubt get people who still complain about it.